Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context about the CRM payload and cites the underlying endpoint (GET /api/guests), but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering, or result caps beyond what the schema states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, plus the endpoint reference. It is efficient, though the semicolon-joined phrasing is slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned (emails, phone numbers, address, notes, bookings), which is genuinely helpful. Pagination mechanics and total-count behavior are left to the schema, a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so page, page_size, and query are already documented with bounds. The description's "optionally search" reinforces the query parameter's role but adds no syntax, matching rules, or examples beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (guests) and enumerates the fields returned (emails, phone numbers, address, notes, bookings), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling smoobu_get_guest, leaving the collection-vs-single distinction implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Optionally search" hints that the query parameter enables filtering, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer smoobu_get_guest for a single record, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer usage entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.